Access over Ability - Good Will Hunting Style

            I have been having a debate with my friend Zach for the past few days in regards to our opinions of access vs. ability. We agree that the two require some combination for an individual to be truly successful. But our debate is which is most important/which one should be chosen if a person could only have one.

            My argument is focused on the benefits of access. My favorite example used in this argument has been of Will Hunting from the film “Good Will Hunting”. Will was a mathematical super genius from South Boston who worked as a janitor at MIT. He had been in and out of jail since his teen years and now worked a number of manual labor jobs through his parole officer. Will spends a great deal of time reading and has the ability to perform incredible mathematical feats. But he has never had access to any higher education. It is not until he solves a problem on a chalkboard at MIT and a professor sees him do so that Will receives any interest from higher education officials.

            Will has all the ability in the world; he is a once in a lifetime mind. But until he received access to higher education Will was not going anywhere with his ability. Will needed to be provided access in order to utilize the amazing ability that he had. This ties directly to the egg drop experiment. A physics student provided with few supplies would have a difficult time defeating a history student who was provided with all the supplies needed for the experiment. Those provided with access can succeed despite issues in ability, but those with ability will have difficulty to succeed unless provided reasonable access. Access is something special because it can breed ability and knowledge, by having access a student can learn how to use the products they are provided. But a person with a great deal of ability will only be able to learn as much as their access allows.

            Ullucci focuses on the idea, without using this phrase, of blaming the victim. Many low-income schools do not help students and use poverty as an excuse for not providing a quality education. Assuming that ability is more important than access seems like an idea that could be considered blaming the victim. It makes me think that if a person does not have the ability then they will fail, but access allows for ability to be harnessed and expanded. This idea and connection is something that I think Ullucci is stressing in his work.